Ted Rogers Program in Cardiotoxicity Prevention, Peter Munk Cardiac Center, Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Toronto General Hospital, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Rogers Computational Program, Ted Rogers Centre for Heart Research, Peter Munk Cardiac Centre, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
JAMA Cardiol. 2022 Mar 1;7(3):330-340. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2021.5881.
Diagnosis of cancer therapy-related cardiac dysfunction (CTRCD) remains a challenge. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) provides accurate measurement of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), but access to repeated scans is limited.
To develop a diagnostic model for CTRCD using echocardiographic LVEF and strain and biomarkers, with CMR as the reference standard.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this prospective cohort study, patients were recruited from University of Toronto-affiliated hospitals from November 2013 to January 2019 with all cardiac imaging performed at a single tertiary care center. Women with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive early-stage breast cancer were included. The main exclusion criterion was contraindication to CMR. A total of 160 patients were recruited, 136 of whom completed the study.
Sequential therapy with anthracyclines and trastuzumab.
Patients underwent echocardiography, high-sensitivity troponin I (hsTnI), B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP), and CMR studies preanthracycline and postanthracycline every 3 months during and after trastuzumab therapy. Echocardiographic measures included 2-dimensional (2-D) LVEF, 3-D LVEF, peak systolic global longitudinal strain (GLS), and global circumferential strain (GCS). LVEF CTRCD was defined using the Cardiac Review and Evaluation Committee Criteria, GLS or GCS CTRCD as a greater than 15% relative change, and abnormal hsTnI and BNP as greater than 26 pg/mL and ≥ 35 pg/mL, respectively, at any follow-up point. Combinations of echocardiographic measures and biomarkers were examined to diagnose CMR CTRCD using conditional inference tree models.
Among 136 women (mean [SD] age, 51.1 [9.2] years), CMR-identified CTRCD occurred in 37 (27%), and among those with analyzable images, in 30 of 131 (23%) by 2-D LVEF, 27 of 124 (22%) by 3-D LVEF, 53 of 126 (42%) by GLS, 61 of 123 (50%) by GCS, 32 of 136 (24%) by BNP, and 14 of 136 (10%) by hsTnI. In isolation, 3-D LVEF had greater sensitivity and specificity than 2-D LVEF for CMR CTRCD while GLS had greater sensitivity than 2-D or 3-D LVEF. Regression tree analysis identified a sequential algorithm using 3-D LVEF, GLS, and GCS for the optimal diagnosis of CTRCD (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 89.3%). The probability of CTRCD when results for all 3 tests were negative was 1.0%. When 3-D LVEF was replaced by 2-D LVEF in the model, the algorithm still performed well; however, its primary value was to rule out CTRCD. Biomarkers did not improve the ability to diagnose CTRCD.
Using CMR CTRCD as the reference standard, these data suggest that a sequential approach combining echocardiographic 3-D LVEF with 2-D GLS and 2-D GCS may provide a timely diagnosis of CTRCD during routine CTRCD surveillance with greater accuracy than using these measures individually.
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02306538.
癌症治疗相关心脏功能障碍(CTRCD)的诊断仍然是一个挑战。心血管磁共振(CMR)可提供左心室射血分数(LVEF)的准确测量,但重复扫描的机会有限。
使用超声心动图 LVEF 和应变以及生物标志物为 HER2 阳性早期乳腺癌患者建立 CTRCD 的诊断模型,以 CMR 为参考标准。
设计、地点和参与者:在这项前瞻性队列研究中,从 2013 年 11 月至 2019 年 1 月,从多伦多大学附属医院招募患者,并在一家三级保健中心进行所有心脏成像检查。包括接受曲妥珠单抗序贯蒽环类药物治疗的 HER2 阳性早期乳腺癌女性。主要排除标准是 CMR 禁忌症。共招募了 160 名患者,其中 136 名完成了研究。
接受蒽环类药物和曲妥珠单抗的序贯治疗。
患者在接受蒽环类药物和曲妥珠单抗治疗期间和之后的每 3 个月进行超声心动图、高敏肌钙蛋白 I(hsTnI)、B 型利钠肽(BNP)和 CMR 研究。超声心动图测量包括二维(2-D)LVEF、三维(3-D)LVEF、峰值收缩期整体纵向应变(GLS)和整体圆周应变(GCS)。使用心脏审查和评估委员会标准定义 LVEF CTRCD,当 2-D GLS 或 2-D GCS 发生大于 15%的相对变化时诊断为 CTRCD,任何随访点的 hsTnI 和 BNP 分别大于 26 pg/mL 和≥35 pg/mL 时也诊断为 CTRCD。使用条件推理树模型检查超声心动图测量值和生物标志物的组合,以诊断 CMR CTRCD。
在 136 名女性中(平均[标准差]年龄为 51.1[9.2]岁),37 名(27%)被 CMR 诊断为 CTRCD,其中 30 名(23%)可分析图像的女性通过 2-D LVEF 诊断,27 名(22%)通过 3-D LVEF 诊断,53 名(42%)通过 GLS 诊断,61 名(50%)通过 GCS 诊断,32 名(24%)通过 BNP 诊断,14 名(10%)通过 hsTnI 诊断。单独使用时,3-D LVEF 对 CMR CTRCD 的敏感性和特异性均高于 2-D LVEF,而 GLS 的敏感性则高于 2-D 或 3-D LVEF。回归树分析确定了一种使用 3-D LVEF、GLS 和 GCS 的序贯算法,用于最佳诊断 CTRCD(接受者操作特征曲线下面积,89.3%)。当所有 3 项测试结果均为阴性时,CTRCD 的概率为 1.0%。当模型中用 2-D LVEF 替代 3-D LVEF 时,该算法仍能很好地发挥作用;然而,其主要价值在于排除 CTRCD。生物标志物并不能提高诊断 CTRCD 的能力。
使用 CMR CTRCD 作为参考标准,这些数据表明,在常规 CTRCD 监测期间,使用超声心动图 3-D LVEF 与 2-D GLS 和 2-D GCS 相结合的序贯方法可能比单独使用这些方法更准确地诊断 CTRCD。
ClinicalTrials.gov 标识符:NCT02306538。